Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 5 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Are there true savings in recycling?
Published Wednesday, August 20, 2008
In New York City, they separate cans, bottles, plastic and paper.
Each resident must purchase four specially-marked trash cans. The city spot-checked and sent tickets ($50, maybe $150 now?) Mike Lazarus says, “This could work well for us.”
For you, yes; but the expense and time required of the citizens is perfectly enormous.
Is there a real savings in emissions? Yes, recycling takes less energy than creating afresh. But fuel for four trash trucks, instead of one? The gasoline for the spot-checkers? The energy to provide for the army of accountants and the tickets?
Bill Fletcher
Natchez resident





Comments
Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Other cities do NOT have such draconian procedures. Is NYC the only model to follow?
Besides, Natchez hardly has the volume of trash etc that NYC has.
Finally, what is so hard about putting a can or a bottle in one receptical or another? I mean come on--how lazy can you be???
Can we try and measure apples to apples instead of cherries to elephants. please?
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The majority of folks who insist on a profit to the coordinating agency for public recycling efforts really do not validate other reasons to do it. The savings of re-using that material at far less cost does go directly into our economy, though.
The reason we use so much energy per person in this country is that we chop up our concerns and lose sight of the big picture.
If that doesn't bother you at all go ahead and stand against anything that doesn't make a profit for the agency involved.
Depending on your yardstick that would include the police, the fire department, the church, your character, your soul and the school system. The trash pickup system does not make a profit now, does it?.
Posted by cindygreen (anonymous) on August 20, 2008 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So what you're saying is that since it's a hassle, you don't want to do it? Wow, Fletcher, that sounds pretty selfish. For once you're pushing up daisies, your children and grandchildren will be dealing with the mess you left behind, or rather, was too lazy to help clean up. Remember the boat floating around looking for somewhere to dump its trash?
As with many problems, a bit of education and cooperation is all it takes. For example, in Japan, children learn about recycling from an early age, so it would be unthinkable for them to put a can or bottle in a garbage can for burnable items. And it's divided up much more than what is currently being discussed here. And the Bay Area in California has been recycling for at least two decades. When I lived there, it wasn't a big deal: put bottles and cans in one bin, newspapers in another, and put out the regular trash as always. Not such a hassle really.
Unfortunately, it seems that many Americans want to avoid the truth and continue living oblivious to what goes on around them. For example, why is everyone so surprised about the price of gas? One day there won't be any. And yet people still drive Hummers? Ha. The price of gas in Japan was $6 a gallon five years ago. We should have learned our lesson in the 70's and most cars should be getting 50mpg. Yes, we need to plan ahead. If not for ourselves, then for the Americans who come after us.
We need more people who are part of the solution, not dead weight and part of the problem.
Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on August 21, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
bravo cindygreen
Posted by Bobaloo (anonymous) on August 21, 2008 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bill needs a landfill in his backyard.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)